Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: When a PCN becomes an FPN
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
chriss
Following on from my previous post I now have an FPN to add to the weeks tickets. Would you believe I managed 3 tickets in 20 hours in one parking space?

The situation:
I work on a road in a pedestrianised zone. No vehicles are permitted on the road 10am-6pm. One end of the road prohibits access except for loading and unloading outside those times. All side streets from half way down the street permit access to the street without access restriction outside the hours of pedestrianisation. This is demonstrated by the following sign:



However, when parked in an off-road parking bay I had accessed via that junction I received an FPN from Thames Valley Police for offence T586 (possibly TS86) of "contravene access prohibition".

Based upon previous experience this is because it is common for the local police to misunderstand the signage and mistakenly believe vehicular access is prohibited 24x7 or to believe access is limited to loading and unloading - which it clearly is not in the areas covered by the signs shown above.

Does anyone have any information on offence code T586 (or TS86)? I cannot locate this online.

I wish to appeal this ticket and will be applying to go to court over it. However, I am told by the local police that I could write to the Fixed Penalty Support Unit who may be able to cancel it in response to my representations before going to court.

There is a very good chance that CCTV footage exists proving the way I entered the street. There is NO possibility that CCTV footage exists of me entering it any other way and NO possibility the officer in question observed me doing so as the ticket was issued some 4 hours after I entered the street and I can be sure at the very least there will be CCTV footage of the vehicle in the parking place at some point between 8pm and 11pm when the ticket was issued. I therefore am confident that I can introduce Reasonable Doubt that I did not contravene the access prohibition irrespective of the statement of the issuing officer.

How should I proceed?

Can I do anything other than make a Data Protection Act Subject Access Request to obtain the CCTV footage for use as defence evidence in court? How do I find out who runs the street CCTV (i.e. council or local police) to make any such requests of? The problem with a Subject Access Request is that they have 40 days to respond, but I know from the local police that their CCTV retention period is 30 days and the ticket was issued 14 days ago.

In writing to the Fixed Penalty Support Unit should I just write a letter stating what I've done, or would I be safer making a PACE Witness Statement since I haven't been cautioned? I am worried that my statement may leave me open to prosecution for another, unrelated, traffic offence (of which I don't believe I'm guilty) as there is similar confusion over other signage I would be admitting to driving past - including a prohibition on access by motor vehicles "except vehicles less than 5m overall length" where local police seem to fail to read or understand the exception on the sign.

Help! Thank you.
Wayne Pendle
You say PCN to FPN, if this pedestrian area is within a special parking area unde the decriminalised parking scheme, then the Police Officer (sounds like a probationer) has not business writing you a ticket. Police within an SPA may only issue an FPN if a vehicle is causing an obstruction which is not the case here. If it is so, that the FPN was issued in the SPA, then the ticket is void. Write to Thames Valley fixed penalty support unit and explain to them that the ticket has been unlawfully issued by a Police officer, they will have to cancel it.

If however the alledged contravention did not occur in a Special parking area, and the time of the FPN was after 18:00hrs, then again, write to the central ticket office and inform them, they will have to cancel it.

Incidentally as you rightly pointed out, there's no provision for loading or vehicle access at all according to those signs.


If you want to be really cheeky, ask for an apology too.
chriss
QUOTE (Wayne Pendle @ Sat, 25 Mar 2006 - 07:40) *
You say PCN to FPN, if this pedestrian area is within a special parking area unde the decriminalised parking scheme, then the Police Officer (sounds like a probationer) has not business writing you a ticket. Police within an SPA may only issue an FPN if a vehicle is causing an obstruction which is not the case here. If it is so, that the FPN was issued in the SPA, then the ticket is void. Write to Thames Valley fixed penalty support unit and explain to them that the ticket has been unlawfully issued by a Police officer, they will have to cancel it.

If however the alledged contravention did not occur in a Special parking area, and the time of the FPN was after 18:00hrs, then again, write to the central ticket office and inform them, they will have to cancel it.


I think the offence code is for breaching an access prohibition though and the fact I was parked there was immaterial. Breaching an access prohibition (should it actually exist) would be a police matter IMHO. However, it doesnt' exist on this part of the street, only the "upper" end of the street.

Am I safe writing to them or should I use the PACE witness statement to avoid opening myself to further charges?

QUOTE
Incidentally as you rightly pointed out, there's no provision for loading or vehicle access at all according to those signs.
If we want to load, we either park off the carriageway in the prescribed off-road bays (non-standard markings) or enter the street from the top where loading is permitted, or have people alighting and loading simultaneously, as "no waiting" doesn't preclude alighting in my understanding.

QUOTE
If you want to be really cheeky, ask for an apology too.


Already spoken to the issuing officers Inspector about that one, he was very apologetic, especially when I read out a list of allegations of his officers driving through the no motor vehicle prohibition to get to the kebab shop faster and then refusing to identify themselves when I asked for their shoulder numbers smile.gif Don't you love digital cameras! I haven't seen them doing it since wink.gif
Wayne Pendle
QUOTE
I think the offence code is for breaching an access prohibition though and the fact I was parked there was immaterial. Breaching an access prohibition (should it actually exist) would be a police matter IMHO. However, it doesnt' exist on this part of the street, only the "upper" end of the street.
Yes sorry,when you said city, i thought you meant London City, wrong info on my part,must be more careful. In London, attendants may issue for Failing to comply with a sign indicating a restriction on vehicles entering a pedestrian zone (53). Outside London, it would appear that the Police can still issue an FPN for this offence. I'll double check it but it appears right.

QUOTE
Am I safe writing to them or should I use the PACE witness statement to avoid opening myself to further charges?


Check with andy foster or Jeffrey Archer etc regarding PACE.

QUOTE
If we want to load, we either park off the carriageway in the prescribed off-road bays (non-standard markings) or enter the street from the top where loading is permitted, or have people alighting and loading simultaneously, as "no waiting" doesn't preclude alighting in my understanding.
See other post.

QUOTE
Already spoken to the issuing officers Inspector about that one, he was very apologetic, especially when I read out a list of allegations of his officers driving through the no motor vehicle prohibition to get to the kebab shop faster and then refusing to identify themselves when I asked for their shoulder numbers smile.gif Don't you love digital cameras! I haven't seen them doing it since wink.gif


Nice one, one rule for them, another for the rest of us!!
chriss
QUOTE (Wayne Pendle @ Sat, 25 Mar 2006 - 14:06) *
QUOTE

Am I safe writing to them or should I use the PACE witness statement to avoid opening myself to further charges?


Check with andy foster or Jeffrey Archer etc regarding PACE.


I don't suppose either of you are reading this?
andy_foster
Can you scan and post the FPN?
chriss
QUOTE (andy_foster @ Sat, 1 Apr 2006 - 19:57) *
Can you scan and post the FPN?


I'll see what I can do... I had to reply so have requested that it be reconsidered and that if not it be taken to court. I made a statement of the facts as I understood them as a witness statement and claimed my rights under PACE. Will post more when I have the information to hand!
Ziltro
Just looking at that sign...
Which is believe is: Diagram 618.3A, right hand version.

The word "Pedestrian" is meant to be in capitals.

It sais "The words 'Except for access' in the right hand version of the diagram may be omitted" but it doesn't say that the box containing those words can be omited. 618.3A is the closest match I can see to the sign photographed.

Is it within 50 metres of a street lamp? Was that lamp on when you entered? If so was the sign iluminated? (This may or may not be relevant, I can't quite work it out wacko.gif)

Do the stickers invalidate it? "They" are meant to maintain the signs, not just put them up. (right?)
Wayne Pendle
QUOTE (Ziltro @ Mon, 10 Apr 2006 - 04:28) *
Just looking at that sign...
Which is believe is: Diagram 618.3A, right hand version.

The word "Pedestrian" is meant to be in capitals.

It sais "The words 'Except for access' in the right hand version of the diagram may be omitted" but it doesn't say that the box containing those words can be omited. 618.3A is the closest match I can see to the sign photographed.

Is it within 50 metres of a street lamp? Was that lamp on when you entered? If so was the sign iluminated? (This may or may not be relevant, I can't quite work it out wacko.gif)

Do the stickers invalidate it? "They" are meant to maintain the signs, not just put them up. (right?)



Oh my god, you're right!!!!! wacko.gif I beleive they've got mixed up with 637.2 . 618.2 clearly has dimensions that insist on 37.5 and as such, this would invalidate the traffic order, yes!! I can't see any amendments to this!!

The question is, whether or not NPAS could be convinced, NPAS are far from independant. It depends on whether the adjudicator has the balls to ackowledge that the country are not complying with the law.

Moses -v- Barnet

Yet Barnet in their appeal submission to the adjudicator astonishingly state that if they lost their appeal it would make many parking tickets issued by Barnet council and other London Authorities unenforceable. The Parking Adjudicator dismissed this argument [sic] by stating “Surely good administration commences with compliance with the Law?”
Ziltro
QUOTE (Wayne Pendle @ Mon, 10 Apr 2006 - 09:07) *
Oh my god, you're right!!!!! wacko.gif I beleive they've got mixed up with 637.2 . 618.2 clearly has dimensions that insist on 37.5 and as such, this would invalidate the traffic order, yes!! I can't see any amendments to this!!

It's so confusing! But basically if the sign doesn't match any of the diagrams then it isn't one, right?
I seem to remember a case quoted for double yellow lines with no end bar, with words and meaning similar to "just because a reasonable person could work out what a sign means, if it's wrong it's wrong."

QUOTE
TSGRD, SCHEDULE 16, Regulation 17(1), PERMITTED VARIANTS, 38.
...(2) Where a diagram in column (2) is marked with an asterisk the time of the day may be expressed by the phrase "At any time" or "at any time", as appropriate.

This also implies that case is important, in my opinion. smile.gif
Wayne Pendle
QUOTE
It's so confusing! But basically if the sign doesn't match any of the diagrams then it isn't one, right?
I seem to remember a case quoted for double yellow lines with no end bar, with words and meaning similar to "just because a reasonable person could work out what a sign means, if it's wrong it's wrong."
Exactly, there was one tribunal where an adjudicator indicated that "the law does not concern itself with trifles", when deciding on a hearing in which somone had parked on double yellows without t-bars.

He was wrong, Adjudicators have NO power to set precedant, they have to work within the law. There is no such thing as "in the spirit of the law", If a sign or line does not conform to the law, then those signs or lines do not exist in law unless the Council can show that they do, or that there is a permitted variant.


QUOTE
TSGRD, SCHEDULE 16, Regulation 17(1), PERMITTED VARIANTS, 38.
...(2) Where a diagram in column (2) is marked with an asterisk the time of the day may be expressed by [b]the phrase "At any time" or "at any time", as appropriate.
This also implies that case is important, in my opinion. smile.gif



Indeed it does!!
DW190
QUOTE (Ziltro @ Wed, 12 Apr 2006 - 02:35) *
QUOTE (Wayne Pendle @ Mon, 10 Apr 2006 - 09:07) *
Oh my god, you're right!!!!! wacko.gif I beleive they've got mixed up with 637.2 . 618.2 clearly has dimensions that insist on 37.5 and as such, this would invalidate the traffic order, yes!! I can't see any amendments to this!!

It's so confusing! But basically if the sign doesn't match any of the diagrams then it isn't one, right?
I seem to remember a case quoted for double yellow lines with no end bar, with words and meaning similar to "just because a reasonable person could work out what a sign means, if it's wrong it's wrong."
QUOTE
TSGRD, SCHEDULE 16, Regulation 17(1), PERMITTED VARIANTS, 38.
...(2) Where a diagram in column (2) is marked with an asterisk the time of the day may be expressed by the phrase "At any time" or "at any time", as appropriate.

This also implies that case is important, in my opinion. smile.gif



Davies v Heatley [1971] R.T.R 145
Because by s.64(2) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 traffic signs shall be of the size, colour and type prescribed by regulation, if a sign the contravention of which is an offence contrary to s.36 is not as prescribed by the regulation, no offence is committed if the sign is contravened, even if the sign is clearly recognisable to a reasonable man as a sign of that kind.
Wayne Pendle
QUOTE
Davies v Heatley [1971]R.T.R 145
Because by s.64(2) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 traffic signs shall be of the size, colour and type prescribed by regulation, if a sign the contravention of which is an offence contrary to s.36 is not as prescribed by the regulation, no offence is committed if the sign is contravened, even if the sign is clearly recognisable to a reasonable man as a sign of that kind.



Well done that man,that's the one, so we can assume from the above that law does indeed, concern itself with trifles.
chriss
Well we're crossing threads a bit here since this was about an FPN for contravening access prohibitions which I'll come back to in a later post.

You've all hit the nail on the head though. I've been away from the forums for a week or so but in the meantime have had to file a number of defences. Quoting from my letters to Control Plus here...:

The yellow and white signs at the entrance to X Street from Y Street as depicted in the photos attached to your correspondence do not meet my understanding of the statutory requirements as set out in The Traffic Signs and General Directions 2002 Statutory Instrument 2002 No. 3113 and as illustrated by diagram 618.3 and 618.3A thereof. You will observe that no permitted variant of either variable message sign permits the exclusion of an ‘Exception Panel’ as indicated within Schedule 2 of the SI. Therefore I believe any restrictions they may intend to portray are unenforceable.

The restriction signs to which you refer on X Street are, one assumes, intended to be those prescribed within diagram 637.2, Schedule 2 of the TSRA 2002. You will observe that Schedule 19, Part II, Section 24, Para 4 stipulates:

I have removed a section here to keep this readable (available by private message to anyone interested) - I go on to explain in english for the council...

I believe the road comprises a carriageway and footway which are clearly separately defined. If one is to interpret the signage at the entrance to X Street from Y Street (that which I previously alleged is non-standard) as I believe is intended, then the entry of vehicular traffic into the pedestrian zone is not restricted at the same times as those at which the waiting of vehicles is intended to be prohibited by these signs. Similarly the entry of vehicular traffic into the pedestrian zone is not restricted at the same times as those at which the lower panel of the sign indicates. Therefore I believe any restriction portrayed or intended by the “No Waiting” signage on X Street is unenforceable without the presence of road markings as prescribed by Schedule 19, Part II, Section 24, Para 4 of The Traffic Signs and General Directions 2002 Statutory Instrument 2002 No. 3113.

End quotes.

Now let's not forget, the real argument here is the fact there's a Parking sign up on the street and they're saying you can't park there!
Wayne Pendle
QUOTE
Now let's not forget, the real argument here is the fact there's a Parking sign up on the street and they're saying you can't park there!


Voila, so itself is confusing to the driver when in fact signage has to be readily understood by the average driver and that's even before they've got everything else right.
chriss
QUOTE (Wayne Pendle @ Fri, 14 Apr 2006 - 02:20) *
QUOTE

Now let's not forget, the real argument here is the fact there's a Parking sign up on the street and they're saying you can't park there!


Voila, so itself is confusing to the driver when in fact signage has to be readily understood by the average driver and that's even before they've got everything else right.


You would think. In a court you'd have no problem arguing this. The tricky bit is making sure it gets to a court so it can be argued there.

I've not heard from the Thames Valley Police Fixed Penalty Office yet so I'm guessing I'll be getting a court date in due course for the FPN. With any luck it'll take them more than 6 months to sort that out around here.
chriss
Update on my FPN for anyone who's interested.

The FPN was issued Saturday 11/03/2006.

I responded to the police Fixed Penalty Support Unit in writing on 31/03/2006.

The nature of my response was a PACE Witness Statement (inadmissible as evidence against me). In summary this statement said:
I was the driver at the time of the alleged offence.
The alleged offence did not occur as my alleged actions were not an offence.
I believe the officer who issued the FPN believed my actions were an offence and he was mistaken in his belief.
I requested CCTV footage showing both my actions and disproving my alleged actions was to be retained for production in court to prove my innocence.
Should the Fixed Penalty Support Unit chose not to waive payment of the penalty then I request a court hearing.


I have received a letter dated 26th April 2006 from the Fixed Penalty Support Unit acknowledging receipt of my correspondence and confirming that they are making enquiries into the matter. Furthermore the 28 day enforcement period is beings suspended whilst further enquiries are being made and the remainder of the 28 day period would be reinstated should their decision be to uphold the penalty.

Now is it just me, or does sending a letter on 26/04 suspending a 28 day deadline that began 11/03 seem a little strange to anyone?

Oh, also, they can't spell my name correctly I see, so I'm wondering if it would be a criminal offence to open any further corespondence they send me?
Wayne Pendle
Sounds to me, that it's a proforma letter that is sent out to anyone who decides to contest an FPN. I guess, technically, you could say that by ignoring their letters due to incorrectly named persons, that they had run out of time with regards to laying down with the court. If there's a return address, i'd send it back with not known at this address, they then have to make genuine enquiries as to where the keeper is. Could take months before they spot the mistake.
patdavies
QUOTE (chriss @ Mon, 1 May 2006 - 19:03) *
Oh, also, they can't spell my name correctly I see, so I'm wondering if it would be a criminal offence to open any further corespondence they send me?


My understanding is that once a letter has been delivered to your postbox (doormat), you are at liberty to open it, regardless of the name on the envelope. Once it has been (mis)delivered, it is no longer in the postal system.
Insider
QUOTE (patdavies @ Tue, 2 May 2006 - 10:09) *
My understanding is that once a letter has been delivered to your postbox (doormat), you are at liberty to open it, regardless of the name on the envelope. Once it has been (mis)delivered, it is no longer in the postal system.


thats not my understanding of the situation although i'm not sure on why.....

IIRC it's a no-no to not either hand it to the postie or mark it as "not at this address" and repost it.

Although i'm the sort of bloke who opens junk mail, stuffs it back in the business reply envelope and sends it back with some "cough" extra weight with a nice note saying f*** off laugh.gif
chriss
Success. I have been excused payment of the ticket.

They have spelt my name correctly on the latest letter so thanks to whoever is reading this forum in the Thames Valley Police FPN processing office.

I am not happy that whilst the officer who issued the ticket agrees with my comments regarding the signage and agrees the signage is clear in permitting me access I have still been treated as a criminal in this letter. I have been told that future offences may not be treated as leniently (which is frustrating given that the letter seems to agree I committed no offence) and furthermore...

I feel I have been threatened with the issuing of a ticket for a 'no waiting' offence in the future. Although this is carefully worded I think this is appauling given this street is in a DPE area and the police themselves therefore cannot issue such a ticket. My disgust is compounded by the number of parking tickets I do have for this location which (to date) I am succesfully appealing.
g_attrill
I expect it was another form letter - they probably took one of their "we'll be nice and let them off" letters and added the paragraph about the officer admitting he was wrong.

Ther is no harm in writing back again and asking what the meaning of "future offences may not be treated as leniently" and whether they included that sentence in error, given they have admitted that you had not comitted any offences. You should also ask them to confirm that in fact no offences were committed, the FPN was mistakenly issued and that you are perfectly entitled to repeat your actions without fear of prosecution.

Gareth
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2019 Invision Power Services, Inc.